Neelaveni Mohan Vs Nunavath Anasuya Naik — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Neelaveni Mohan Vs Nunavath Anasuya Naik — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition disposed of; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Executing Court for appropriate relief or directions regarding the manner and mode of compliance with the decree; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the salary attachment warrant issued by the Executing Court on 22.10.2025 without service of notice and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to offer his explanation suffers from illegality or procedural impropriety warranting interference.

Court's answer

Notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC is mandated only where an execution application is filed beyond the prescribed two-year period; the mere date on which the attachment warrant was issued cannot, by itself, attract the requirement of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that the Execution Petition itself was filed beyond time is not borne out by the material on record.

Key takeaways

No patent illegality or procedural impropriety is found in the issuance of the attachment warrant by the Executing Court.ratio¶39
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Executing Court for appropriate relief or directions regarding the manner and mode of compliance with the decree, in accordance with law.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under S.115 CPC by the judgment debtor (petitioner/JDR) challenging the salary attachment order dated 22.10.2025 passed in E.P. No. 17 of 2019 in O.S. No. 82 of 2016 by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, on the ground that the attachment warrant was issued without service of notice and without an opportunity to explain. Held: under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC notice is mandated only where an execution application is filed beyond the prescribed two-year period; the decree was passed on 08-07.2017 and the execution petition was filed in March, 2019, so the contention that the execution petition was out of time and that notice was required before issuance of the attachment warrant was not borne out by the record; the mere date of issuance of the attachment warrant cannot by itself attract the notice requirement; accordingly no patent illegality or procedural impropriety was found in the issuance of the attachment warrant. Petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Executing Court for appropriate relief or directions regarding the manner and mode of compliance with the decree; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:4670 OF 2025

Petition under section 1 15 of CPC, Aggrieved by the Order daled 22-102025 in E.P.No.17 of 20(19 in O.S.No.82 of 2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

Between:

Neelaveni Mohan, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. AR Head Constable, R/o Qr.52, Police Head Quarters, Opposite to Bus Stand, Kanmnagar.

...Petitioner/ JDR

AND Nunavath Anasuya Naik, Wo Shankar Naik, D/o Jalapathi Naik, age 55 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o H.No.8-1-553, Kattarampur, Karimnagar Town & District.

...RespondenUDHR

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including attachment of salary of the petitioners in pursuance of the Order daled 22-10-2025 in E.P.No. 17 of 2019 in O.S.No. 82 of 2016 passed by Learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the main CRP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. RAJESH BATHULA, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{N0.4670 0F 2025}

DATE: 04.02.2026

Between:

Neelaveni Mohan

...Petitioner

AND

Nunavath Anasuya^Naik

...Respondents

ORDER:

-l-his Civil Revision Petition is filed calling into question the legality and^propriety of^{the salary attachment orderdated} 22 10.2025^{passed in E P. No. 17 ot2019 in O'S. No.82of 2016 by} the learned Senior^{Civil Judge, Karimnagar.}

2 Heard Sri Rajesh Bathula,^{learned counsel appearing on} behalf of the Petitioner

The^{principal grievanceurged by the petitioneris thatthe} Executing Court,^{without due consideration of the statutoryposition,} issued a salary atlachment^{warrant without affordingan opportunity} to the petitioner to offer^{his explanation. Learned counsel for the}

2

-----t

petitioner further submits, fairly, that there is^{anotherattachment} warrant already^pending against^{the petitioner and that he is willing} to satisfy the decreetal^{dues after some time. On these grounds,he} prays for setting aside the impugned attachment^{warrantand for} appropriate directions.

I have perused the material available^{on record.}

The primary contention of the^{petitioner is that the attachment} warrant was issued without^{service of notice. The record,however,} discloses that a decree was^{passed by the trial Courton 08-07.2017} in O.S. No. 82 of 2016, and^{pursuantthereto'the Execution Petition} was filed in March, 2019 seeking^{attachment of the petitioner's} salary. Nonetheless, the^{aftachmentorder was passedby the} Executing Court on 22.10.2025.

Having regard to the relevant^{dates and the statutory scheme} under Order XXI Rule 22 of^{the Code of Civil Procedure' which} mandates issuance of notice only^{where an execution application is} filed beyond the prescribed two^{year period,} this^{Court is of the} considered view that the contention of the^{petitioner that the} Execution Petition itself was filed beyond time^{is not borne out by the} material on record. The mere date on which the attachment^warrant

J

I I I

was issued cannot, by itself, attract the requirement of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. Accordingly, no patent illegality or procedural impropriety is found in the issuance of the attachment warrant by the Executing Court

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Executing Court for appropriate relief or directions regarding the manner and mode of compliance with the decree, in accordance with law.

With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed

Sd/- T.SRINTVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1

The Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

2 One CC to Mr RAJESH BATHULA, Advocate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies

"^@;,

, I I I I I I i iI I l l

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410212026

ORDER

CRP.No.4670 of 2025

Accordingry, this civir Revision petition is Disposed of.

,It
O